ArticleIndian journal of anaesthesia2013
Role of the Truview EVO2 laryngoscope in the airway management of elective surgical patients: A comparison with the Macintosh laryngoscope.
Article in Indian journal of anaesthesia, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Videolaryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for adult patients requiring tracheal intubation.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016Pooled it
- Comparative evaluation of Truview evo2 and Macintosh laryngoscope for ease of orotracheal intubation in children - A prospective randomized controlled trial.Journal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacologyArticle
- A Comparative Study between Truview PCD Video Laryngoscope and Macintosh Laryngoscope with Respect to Intubation Quality and Hemodynamic Changes.Anesthesia, essays and researchesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Truview EVO2(C) laryngoscope (TL) is a recently introduced optical device designed to provide an unmagnified anterior image of the glottic opening and allow indirect laryngoscopy.
aimThis study is designed to determine whether the TL is a better alternative to the Macintosh laryngoscope (ML) for routine endotracheal intubations in patients with usual airway characteristics.
methodsWe compared the Truview EVO2(C) and MLs in 140 elective surgical patients requiring general anaesthesia and intubation in a prospective crossover fashion. The two blades were compared in terms of Cormack and Lehane grades, time required for intubation, anaesthetists' assessment of ease of intubation, intubation difficulty score, attempts at intubation, success rate, soft tissue damage and arterial oxygen saturation during laryngoscopy. The Student t test and Chi-square test were used to determine the statistical significance of parametric data and categorical data, respectively.
resultsThe Truview EVO2(C) blade provided a better laryngoscopic view than the Macintosh blade as suggested by improved Cormack and Lehane grades (in 48 patients), but required a longer time for intubation than the Macintosh blade (34.1 vs. 22.4 s), i.e., an improved view at the cost of longer mean intubation time. In spite of lower intubation difficulty scores, Truview EVO2(C) was considered as difficult to use on subjective assessment by the anaesthesiologist when compared with Macintosh. There was no difference observed between the two groups in attempts at intubation, success rate, soft tissue damage and arterial oxygen saturation during laryngoscopy.
conclusionWe opine that although Truview provides a better laryngoscopic view than Macintosh in difficult cases, it does not have an extra benefit over Macintosh otherwise, further indicating the need for more experience with the use of a Truview laryngoscope.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.